Bob Filner

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 672, due to urgent constituent support commitments in my congressional district, I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 673, due to urgent constituent support commitments in my congressional district, I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 674, due to urgent constituent support commitments in my Congressional District, I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 675, due to urgent constituent support commitments in my congressional district, I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 677, due to urgent constituent support commitments in my congressional district, I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 676, due to urgent constituent support commitments in my Congressional District, I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I must express my extreme disappointment and dismay at the amount of funding in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2004 for the health care of our nation's veterans. For almost an entire year, the Members of the House Veterans Affairs Committee (both Democratic and Republican) have been fighting for a budget that is worthy of our veterans. The $26.3 billion that is included for the FY2004 VA Medical Care Budget in this appropriations bill is approaching a billion less than the figure recommended by the House VA Committee and by the Independent Budget, the budget that is drafted by veterans. One billion dollars would fund approximately 5000 doctors or 10,000 nurses or 3 million additional outpatient visits. As many of you know, VA Secretary Anthony Principi has been forced, because of lack of funds, to refuse enrollment to many veterans in the VA health care system. Waiting lists for health care appointments include tens of thousands of veterans who are waiting more than six months for their first health care appointment at the VA. This is not the message that we want to send to our troops who are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now, at this time more than ever, we must place veterans as a top priority. This appropriations bill does not do that. Veterans' health care is one of our most important funding issues. We hope and pray that we do not have veterans from the current conflict who become ill with Gulf War illnesses. But we must be prepared for that possibility. We must also not forget the warriors of the first Gulf War who are sick and still waiting to learn the cause and the cure for their illnesses. We must be ready to give treatment and care to all the men and women who have sacrificed for our country. We cannot guarantee that with the budget figures in this bill. It is time to stop this frustrating and ineffective funding for veterans' health care. It is time to change the process of funding VA medical care. Congressman Lane Evans, Ranking Democratic Member of the House VA Committee, has introduced a bill (H.R. 2318), which I have co- sponsored, to automatically increase VA health care funding each year to accommodate inflation and new enrollees. We must change from our current practice of discretionary funding for VA health care to mandatory (or assured) funding, the way we fund many other veterans' benefits. That change would do away with the fight we have to make each year in Congress for our veterans--a fight that, unfortunately, we often end up losing. We have the resources. It is a question of priorities. It is a question of will. Join me in vowing that this will be the last year we end up with less money than is needed for veterans' health care. Join me in pushing for passage of assured funding for our nation's veterans.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say shame on this body for passing this reprehensible Medicare bill that has been rammed through Congress today by the Republican leadership. This legislation does nothing that its supporters claim it does. They claim that this bill will help seniors with their prescription drug costs and give them more choices in their healthcare. But actually, this bill does none of that. It does not provide a comprehensive, affordable or reliable prescription drug benefit. Further, it unravels the consistent, guaranteed healthcare coverage that seniors have come to expect under Medicare. This bill is so bad, that even some Republicans refused to support it. Opponents of this terrible legislation see through the smoke and mirrors that supporters are putting up and realize that this bill was not about helping seniors pay for their prescription drugs or giving them access to better care, but that this bill was actually about helping the bottom lines of private insurance companies, HMOs and the pharmaceutical companies. There are many, many bad provisions in this legislation, and I would like to highlight some of the worst of them here. One: Under this bill, Medicare as we know it is completely unraveled. First, Medicare Part B will be forced to compete with private managed care plans. This leaves the health of our seniors to the whims of private insurance companies and does not guarantee that all seniors will be receiving the same benefits across the country. That means seniors in my District in San Diego, CA, might have better coverage than seniors in New York. Or seniors in New York might have better coverage than those in San Diego--we just don't know--it's completely up to the private insurance companies and HMOs to decide how much coverage they want to provide. Not only is the amount of coverage going to vary, but so are the costs of the premiums. Again, that means seniors in San Diego might pay more than seniors in New York--or vice versa--depending on how much the private insurance companies and the HMOs decide they want to charge! Secondly, this bill would institute a ``means test.'' In layman's terms, that means that in 2007, the Medicare part B premium would be linked to income. This not only goes against the main tenet of Medicare--which grants coverage to everyone, regardless of income--but also, higher premiums create an incentive for healthier seniors to leave Medicare. This would leave only the sickest seniors in Medicare and drive up premiums even more. Two: The so-called prescription drug ``benefit'' is absolutely inadequate and actually decreases coverage for some seniors and can cost them more than they're paying right now. Supporters of this bill claim that the prescription drug benefit will help seniors cover the costs of their medications. However, there are so many problems with this benefit that it's hard to decide where to begin. First of all, this benefit does not even kick in until 2006. When it finally does begin, seniors are expected to pay a high deductible. Then, there is a piece de resistance of this so-called benefit: there is a big hole in coverage. Rather than providing continuous coverage throughout the year, this bill has a $2,850 coverage gap in which seniors don't receive any coverage at all. Half of America's seniors fall into this hole. The icing on the cake is that despite the fact that they would not be receiving coverage for part of the year, they are still expected to continue to pay the premiums. Additionally, more than 2 million retirees, who currently have drug coverage through their former employers, will lose that coverage. Because drug costs keep rising and this bill has no measures to keep drug costs low, it is very tempting for employers to simply drop their coverage and force seniors onto this inadequate drug coverage plan. Furthermore, rather than having Medicare kick in when a retiree reaches catastrophic coverage, this bill forces the employer-provided benefits to cover those costs--yet another reason for employers to pull their coverage. Three: This bill explicitly prohibits the government from negotiating with drug companies for lower drug prices. One of the greatest strengths of a prescription drug plan under Medicare is that it could reduce drug prices for participants using the large number of participants in the Medicare program to bargain with pharmaceutical companies for better prices on their products. Yet this bill denies Medicare participants those lower costs, ensuring continued skyrocketing prescription drug prices. It is for those reasons--and many many more--that I could not support this poison pill for Medicare and a placebo of a prescription drug benefit.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Madam Speaker, I also rise in support of S. 1156 as it comes to the House. As I said yesterday on the floor of the House and I will say again to the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the ranking member, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), if we take the benefits package that we passed yesterday and the health package that we will pass today, the sum together of these make this year one of the most productive years ever for benefits and health care for our Nation's veterans. I want to congratulate our leadership on that. Let me just speak quickly to two of the provisions in this bill. One of them provides access to the veterans medical facilities to all Filipino World War II veterans who legally reside in the United States. This is a benefit that comes from my bill, H.R. 664, and for which I have been fighting for many years, and I thank all the folks involved, the gentleman from Connecticut (Chairman Simmons), the gentleman from Texas (Ranking Member Rodriguez), as well as Veterans' Affairs Secretary Principi for bringing this to the floor today. The Filipino soldiers during World War II helped us win the war in the Pacific, and their brave, courageous stands in the epic battles of Bataan and Corregidor, their critical participation in guerrilla warfare that slowed up the Japanese advance, caused them to suffer greatly after the war when the Congress of 1946 deprived them of the very benefits in both health and benefits that they had been promised. These veterans are now in their seventies and eighties. Their most urgent need is health care. So it is with great joy that I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. It will restore dignity and honor to these brave veterans where over 50 years of injustice burns in their hearts. Their sons and daughters and they themselves, I know, are watching this floor today and are going to have great celebration when we pass this bill later on. What we are saying here today is that these veterans are indeed United States veterans, and we are going to begin remedying the historical injustice that we inflicted upon them. We will make good on the promise of America for these brave veterans. In addition, as has been mentioned, this bill contains major medical investments in many areas of this country, including San Diego, California. The average health care facility in the VA is more than 50 years old. So we have to update these buildings. The building in San Diego is in dire need of seismic correction, and it is one of 60 projects that the VA has identified that need these seismic corrections. So we cannot turn our heads away without acting any longer. We cannot continue to leave VA patients and employees in harm's way. For all these reasons and more, I urge passage of Senate bill 1156.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and we are, of course, supporting H.R. 2297, a bill that incorporates many provisions that have been discussed at the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs and in the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and it includes provisions that upgrade benefits in many, many areas. I would suspect, Mr. Chairman, that if this bill was taken one by one in terms of the provisions in there and the health bill that we hope will follow sometime later today, veterans across the Nation would understand that we are really keeping our promise to our Nation's veterans in both our benefits and our health provisions. I would say to the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and to the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the combination of the benefit and the health bill probably represents one of the most productive years in the history of this Congress in terms of veterans' benefits and veterans' health care. So I thank the chairman, and I thank the ranking member for bringing all these provisions together and working so hard and allowing Members from both sides of the aisle to contribute. There are provisions in these bills that represent both Democratic and Republican contributions, and I think that is the way we ought to behave here, and that is what this bill represents. I just want to add a few comments to what has been stated previously. Two provisions which I helped to write are in the bill. The first involves a cause for which I have been fighting ever since I became a Member of Congress, and it is exceptionally gratifying to see progress on an important issue, and that is restoring the rightful benefits to Filipino World War II veterans. Many of us know that after being drafted into service by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, after bravely fighting alongside soldiers from the U.S. mainland, many Filipino veterans were deprived of their promised benefits by the Congress of 1946. In the intervening years, many of these veterans have emigrated to the United States and have become American citizens. This bill will increase the compensation received by one part of the Filipino Armed Forces, and that is the new Filipino Scouts. They had been given what is called the ``peso rate'' in their disability compensation. That is one-half of what an American soldier would get. And they have been receiving that peso rate since the end of the war, whether they have lived in the United States or in the Philippines. For these that live in the United States, their cost of living is equal to the veterans here, and paying half is just simply not acceptable. Upon the passage of this bill, the widows of the Filipino World War II veterans will also receive the full amount of their DIC benefits, and burial benefits for the new Scouts will also be restored. So this is justice restored after almost 60 years of being denied. There is another provision which I am pleased to see in this bill, and that involves life insurance policies. The VA currently holds about 4,000 insurance policies, valued at about $23 million, on which payment has not been made because the VA has not been able to locate the identified beneficiary. What will happen after this bill passes is that the VA can pay secondary benefits if we cannot locate the primary beneficiary. And if no beneficiary files within 4 years, the VA secretary may pay another appropriate relative. It is a shame to have Veterans paying for life insurance throughout their lifetimes only to have their insurance unclaimed. So this will benefit the families of many of our veterans in this country. Mr. Speaker, these are just two portions of the bill. There are many, many provisions which have been described by my colleagues. Again, I think it is a great advance for veterans to be able to receive the benefits that are in H.R. 2297, so I urge Members to support this bill.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, today is a sad day in the history of Congress. Today one industry has hijacked a political party and that party has bulldozed a poor energy policy through this body. The U.S. Congress is often held up and revered as the model of Democracy. Yet this bill has been bad news for Americans--and our form of government--from the start. First, the Administration, led by Vice President Cheney, held secret meetings with energy industry insiders to determine what they wanted from an energy policy--what the energy industry wants should not be confused with what the nation needed from an energy policy. Next, after a heavy-handed process, a bill, H.R. 6, was passed in this body. The bill then moved into conference, at which point, the two Republican co-chairs decided that they would write the nation's energy policy by themselves with no input from Democrats, but with plenty of input from lobbyists looking out for their oil, gas and other energy industry clients. The energy bill went from bad to worse as, at the last minute, many sweetheart deals were added that had never been passed by either body. Never before has the energy industry had such a friend in the White House and such great friends in the Congress--we know now that GOP does indeed mean ``Gas, Oil, and Petroleum''. Thus far, I have only addressed the problems with the process surrounding this bill. The problems with the policy are too numerous to name here, but I want to highlight some of the more outrageous: It does not improve our energy security and does nothing to promote renewable energy sources. This bill funnels billions of dollars into the oil and gas industries, making us more dependent than ever on foreign sources for these resources. In fact, only \1/3\ of the subsidies in this bill go toward promoting clean, renewable energy that we can find right here in the U.S.A. The policy before us today is stuck in the 20th century and does not take advantage of the advances in technology in the clean and renewable energy arena, and prefers to favor older, dirtier methods to generate our energy supply. It does not protect our water from contaminants that can cause serious health problems. This bill actually protects MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether) producers from product liability suits. MTBE has been proven to be harmful to our health, yet this bill leaves the taxpayers to clean up the mess and lets the producers off scot-free. California, more than any other state has been affected by MTBE. In some cities, many of the drinking water wells are now unusable because of MTBE contamination. It exempts the oil and gas construction activities from Clean Water Act controls on stormwater runoff. I introduced a motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 6 that would have struck language that gave oil and gas construction activities a free pass from controlling their stormwater runoff. This exemption makes them the only construction activity that does not have to take measures to ensure that runoff from their construction sites does not pollute our lakes, streams and rivers. Unfortunately, my motion did not pass and this harmful handout to the oil and gas industry remains. It does not address the problems that caused the California Energy Crisis of 2000-2001. This bill does nothing to prevent the kind of market manipulation that caused energy prices to skyrocket in California. Even the most conservative estimates indicate that California lost over $9 billion to this manipulation by energy companies. This bill leaves California--and the rest of the Nation-- without any protections against market manipulation. It is for these reasons and many more that I cannot and will not support this awful bill. This bill has been bought and paid for by the energy industry--mostly the oil and gas industries. Unfortunately, all Americans will pay the price for this bad bill.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the fiscal year 2004 energy and water appropriations conference report, which funds several projects of great interest to my constituents in Southern California. The New River has been described as the ``world's most polluted river.'' The river flows from Mexico, north across the U.S. border, and through my district in Imperial County, California. Due to grossly inadequate sewage treatment and solid waste facilities in Mexico, raw sewage, industrial waste, and garbage are constantly released into the New River. The New River is extremely polluted, foamy, and foul-smelling. The river significantly violates water quality standards, and plants and animals cannot survive in much of it. The New River continues to threaten the health of residents of my district and of undocumented immigrants who use the waterway to cross the international border. A coalition of citizen groups and government agencies in my district, including the Calexico New River Committee, has developed a feasible plan that will significantly improve the quality of water flowing through the community. The project involves building wastewater infrastructure to improve water quality in the vicinity of the city of Calexico on the southern portion of the New River in Imperial County by installing project headworks and encasing the New River, and constructing a disinfecting facility and wastewater polishing system as the river emerges from its encasement. Mr. Speaker, this bill, which provides funding for the Nation's energy and water-related projects, would continue environmental restoration efforts on the New River. This is an extremely important first step in the process of enhancing the water quality of the southern portion of the New River, enriching life in the community, and making a healthier home for fish and wildlife. Better quality water flowing along the New River would also mean improved water quality in the Salton Sea. The Salton Sea is the largest inland water body in California, and one of the largest salt lakes in the world. The Salton Sea is an important habitat for Federal and State listed endangered species, as well as other migrating and resident bird species, a reservoir for agricultural drainage, a center for recreation, and a wetland ecosystem. But it is quickly becoming too saline to continue supporting wildlife, and a recent rural-to-urban water transfer may shrink the shoreline. This bill would provide funding for the Salton Sea Research project for efforts to continue study of the alternatives for restoration of the Sea. Water that eventually drains into the Salton Sea comes from the Colorado River, and is delivered to farmers and residents in my community by the All American Canal. This bill provides funding to construct small regulating reservoirs on the canal, which will vastly improve operating efficiencies. The reservoirs would provide storage for water that is unavoidably delivered from the lower Colorado River in excess of what is immediately needed by users, thereby improving water conservation efforts. Finally, water in the Colorado River is threatened by a uranium mine tailings pile sitting only 700 feet from the River near Moab, Utah. The tailings, which sit in an unlined pond and seep into the ground water, are radioactive and contain high concentrations of toxic metals left by the leaching process used to separate uranium from ore. The tailings are leaking radioactive material into the Colorado River at levels 1,300 times above the allowed limit. This bill provides funding to accelerate remediation of this site, and would ensure that residents of my community, other Colorado River water users, and the environment receive the long-term protection so desperately needed. For the sake of my constituents at the U.S.-Mexico border, as well as residents of the West, I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise today in opposition to the very limited provision to address the unfair disabled veterans tax in the Defense Authorization Act. Currently, veterans who retire with 20 years of honorable service and who also have a service-connected disability are not permitted to collect both military retired pay and VA disability compensation. In essence, they are paying for their own retirement. We must stop penalizing our disabled veterans in this cold and unfeeling manner. Our nation's veterans and many, many Members of this House have been fighting for so long for the elimination of this tax for all retirees. We are now so close to victory. We cannot settle for the partial concurrent receipt measure that is included in this bill. This proposal is simply unacceptable. It gives less than half a loaf and spreads it over ten years. It is naive at best and callous at worst. The proposal leaves approximately 400,000 military retirees without relief. In my state of California, fully 38,000 are left out of this Republican proposal. Many of the deserving veterans will die before the ten years are up and before they receive their full concurrent receipt. This bill will set up yet another complicated administrative system for our veterans to wade through. And worst of all, this bill as presented today unfairly pits veterans against other veterans. We must restore earned and deserved benefits to all eligible military retirees. If this Defense Authorization Conference Report continues to leave out two-third of deserving veterans, I cannot vote for its passage.

Mr. FILNER

Mr. FILNER. I have someone to counter whatever the gentleman says.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would tell the Rhodes scholar from Oklahoma that he needs some additional training in research. Staff that was here when the bill was written know the intent of Congress, and it is not as the gentleman described. Let me respond to several of the arguments from the other side. If the provisions stays in the energy bill, it is a rollback of existing requirements for construction over five acres. That is what exists now, and this rolls it back, no matter what they say that this intended 10 years ago or whatever. Our original intent in 1987 was to exempt storm water that was totally unpolluted. Storm water that was totally unpolluted was exempted. Storm water from construction is polluted, as we have heard from the gentleman from Oregon, and the gentleman from Texas knows that when there is no possibility of runoff into the waters of the United States one does not need a permit. Where all the storm water is kept on site, go do it; they do not need the permit. So we are I think hearing justifications. We are hearing rationalizations of the destruction of our environment. Mr. Speaker, other industries do not have this exemption from the Clean Water Act. In fact, many other companies, including mom and pop businesses with far fewer resources than the oil and gas industry that the Republican party tries to protect, every one of those businesses must take steps to reduce polluted storm water runoff from their construction activities. So why not oil and gas companies? Could it be because they spend every election cycle millions of dollars on campaign contributions? These companies I think are getting a payback here in the form of special interest loopholes in the Clean Water Act that was stuck into the energy bill. In the last few years, they have given over $64 million to Federal candidates and their parties. It is a great payback that we have here in the energy bill for those contributions. Mr. Speaker, environmental groups all across the Nation support this instruction: The Audubon Society, the American Rivers, the Center for International Environmental Law, Clean Ocean Action, Clean Water Action, Coastal Alliance, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Environmental Integrity Project, Friends of the Earth, the Gulf Restoration Network, the League of Conservation Voters, the National Environmental Trust, the National Resources Defense Council, the Save the Dunes Council, the Sierra Club, The Ocean Conservancy, The Wilderness Society, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. The National League of Cities supports my instruction, and not only these environmental groups support the motion but hunting and fishing groups in America do, Trout Unlimited, the Izaak Walton League and the National Wildlife Federation. It is clear that an exemption is being carved out to allow one business, one sector of our economy, one extremely powerful sector of our economy to buy its way out of the Clean Water Act. I think that is a terrible terrible thing to say to our Nation, that if one gives the campaign contributions they get exempted from the environmental protection that is required of everyone else. Mr. Speaker, I would urge us to adopt this motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva). (Mr. GRIJALVA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) continued to muddy the waters not only of this debate but of this Nation. Let me quote from EPA's most recent national water quality inventory 2000 report which says siltation, siltation is one of the leading pollution problems in the Nation's rivers and streams. Siltation alters aquatic habitat, suffocates fish eggs and bottom dwelling organisms, and can interfere with drinking water treatment processes and recreational use of a river. Dirt, dirt, dirt. We are talking about pollution of our Nation's streams. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing the gentleman from Texas saying that we should not disturb the development of oil and gas, and surely we must find sources of energy in this Nation. What about alternative sources? And why does everyone other industry in America have to comply with this section of the Clean Water Act and not gas and oil if this motion does not pass. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer). (Mr. BLUMENAUER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I would yield myself 2 minutes to respond to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) who continues to throw dirt into this discussion. It is true that the section of the Clean Water Act that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) referred to provides that permits are not required where stormwater runoff is diverted around mining operations or oil and gas operations and does not come into contact with overburdened raw material product or processed wastes. This was in recognition of the fact that there are several situations in mining and oil and gas industries where stormwater is already channeled around plants and operations in a series of ditches in order to prevent such pollution of the stormwater. But this section does not include any stormwater runoff that has been contaminated by contact with overburdened raw material where ends meet products, et cetera. The soils that are disturbed in drilling wells are both overburdened and waste products. There is no evidence anywhere, even in the industry comments, that suggest that stormwater is routed around these drilling and construction sites as it is in the operation sites. In fact, what I wanted to bring in the argument is there is no evidence, even from the oil and gas industries, even from the GOP, that the stormwater flowing through the construction sites are free of sediments or other pollutants. That is what makes them contaminated. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman said, if I heard him right, that he might be going over previously active fields, right, construction that were, am I to understand, active fields?

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today to speak on this motion to instruct the conferees on the energy bill. Mr. Speaker, sometimes the Republican Party is called the GOP. Well, I often wondered what that meant. It is clear from this energy bill that it means gas, oil and petroleum. And my motion would instruct the conferees to strike a section of H.R. 6 which represents a shameless payback to the oil and gas companies of this Nation. This section, if my colleagues can believe it, Mr. Speaker, grants oil and gas companies a free pass from complying with the Clean Water Act, a free pass from complying with one of the major environmental laws that was passed in the 1970s. Under this section, oil and gas development and production sites, oil and gas development and production sites and construction sites do not have to worry about what their activities are doing to our water supply. No other industry in America gets this exemption; only the oil and gas development and production industry. And, they are under no obligation to control storm water runoff that would sully our beautiful lakes, rivers, and streams, and they suffer no consequences. It must be nice for the oil and gas companies to have friends like that in Congress and in the White House, especially when these friends are members of the majority party, the GOP, gas, oil and petroleum, who, rather than dealing with the messy process we so often revere here and hold up as a model of democracy in the world, simply block out all those who would disagree with them. Heaven forbid anybody would bring up objections about the health of our water, not to mention the health of our people. The majority party, gas, oil and petroleum, has blocked out any dissenters right from the beginning on this bill. One of my colleagues, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), tried to introduce an amendment to strike this section, but he was ruled out of order and, get this, because the Committee on Energy and Commerce said it was not under their jurisdiction, but it was under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, but that Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure never considered the bill. Talk about a Catch-22. And attempts to remove it on the floor of this House were thwarted by the Committee on Rules. It is widely acknowledged that the majority did not allow the minority to participate, even in the conference committee, where the Senate and House meet to deal with their differences. So there was never a chance for honest debate of this section. This is what we call as a model for the world, a democracy. So what do we have now, Mr. Speaker? A situation where oil and gas companies will be able to pollute our waters so that our children and grandchildren will not be able to use them. Our waters will be spoiled, our health will be threatened, but that is okay. We do not need clean water anyway, as long as we have our oil. And any suggestions that we invest more in renewable energies or in cleaner energies all were thrown out, and the handouts to the oil companies just keep getting bigger and bigger. Right now, I encourage my colleagues to stop this insult to the environment and to the democratic process. We ought to vote ``yes'' on this motion to instruct and not to let the oil and gas companies pollute our waterways, and we should let the Nation know that we care about clean water. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, would there not be the possibility in active sites or previously at the sites benzene, toluene, other heavy metals? There would not be just dirt there?